14
Adamczewski, “Abraham and Sanballat,” OTE 34/1 (2021): 14-26
Abraham and Sanballat
BARTOSZ ADAMCZEWSKI (CARDINAL STEFAN WYSZYŃSKI UNIVERSITY
IN WARSAW)
ABSTRACT
Several important features of the narrative character of Abraham
allude to the features of the historical person of Sanballat, the first
Israelite governor of the Persian province of Samaria. The most
important common features of Abraham and Sanballat are the origin
in the city of Haran, a non-Yahwistic name, being related to the cult
of the moon god Sin, being given the land of Israel as a hereditary
possession, founding the central sanctuary of Yahweh on Mount
Gerizim, and respecting an important priest from Jerusalem. These
and other common features point to the origin of the book of Genesis
in the secular elite of the Persian province of Samaria ca. 350–340
B.C.
KEYWORDS: Abraham, Sanballat, Samaria, Mount Gerizim,
Persian period
A
INTRODUCTION
In biblical scholarship, Abraham and Sanballat belong to two different worlds—
the exegesis of the book of Genesis and the history of the Persian-period Samaria.
At first glance, they do not have anything in common. However, the most
unexpected things at times become the most interesting ones.
The thought that the narrative character of Abraham from the book of
Genesis has some features of the historical person of Sanballat is not entirely
new. It was mentioned in passing by Diana V. Edelman. In an article published
in the year 2013, she wrote,
Abraham serves in the narrative as the common ancestor for people
living in the territories of Israel/Samerina and Judah/Yehud. He
travels through both areas, erecting altars where he calls upon the
name of Yhwh, and has a dual origin in “Ur of the Chaldees” and in
Haran.… The governor of Samerina in the mid-fifth century was
Sinuballit the Haranite. Abraham may be a Persian-era creation to
produce a neutral, common ancestor for the North and the South and
Submitted: 08/10/2020; peer-reviewed: 11/12/2020; accepted: 18/12/2020. Bartosz
Adamczewski, “Abraham and Sanballat,” Old Testament Essays 34 no. 1 (2021): 14 –
26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17159/2312–3621/2021/v34n1a3.
Adamczewski, “Abraham and Sanballat,” OTE 34/1 (2021): 14-26
15
their Diasporas. Abraham’s activity at Shechem and Bethel, however,
seems designed to include an Israelite/Samarian audience.1
Diana V. Edelman’s argument is therefore twofold. She first argues that
the activity of the narrative character of Abraham in Shechem and Bethel
geographically corresponds to the activity of Sanballat in the territory of the
Persian-period Israel/Samerina. The second argument is only implicit, but it can
be deduced from Diana V. Edelman’s claim. She seems to make a linguistic
connection between Haran, regarded as one of the places of the origin of
Abraham, and the adjectival characterisation of Sanballat as “the Haranite.” Let
us look closer at this connection.
B
SANBALLAT THE HORONITE OR THE HARANITE?
Sanballat is mentioned in the Bible 10 times, and only in the book of Nehemiah.
In this book, the name of Sanballat is three times supplemented with the Hebrew
postmodifier ( החרניNeh 2:10, 19; 13:28), evidently derived from the toponym
חרן, which can be vocalised as Horon, Haran, et cetera. It may be related to the
towns of Lower or Upper Beth-horon in the territory of Ephraim (Josh 21:22),
on the border with Benjamin (Josh 16:3, 5; 18:13–14). This is the most widely
accepted interpretation of the appellative החרני.
There is, however, a significant problem with this identification.
Nehemiah mentions Sanballat החרניtogether with Tobiah the Ammonite official
as well as Geshem the Arabian (Neh 2:10, 19). If the appellative החרניwere
related to Beth-horon, an insignificant town in the territory of Ephraim, it would
not be parallel to the two other appellatives, “the Ammonite” and “the Arabian.”
Therefore, it can be argued that the appellative החרניis not related to Beth-horon,
but rather to the city of Haran in Upper Mesopotamia.2 The name of this city, in
contrast to that of Beth-horon, with its regular scriptio plena ( חורןJosh 10:10–
11 etc.), ( חרוןJosh 18:13–14 etc.), or ( חורון1 Chr 6:53, etc.), is written in the
Bible as ( חרןGen 11:31, etc.), which exactly corresponds to the appellative החרני
(Neh 2:10, 19; 13:28). The appellative החרני, vocalised as ha-Ḥāranî, would then
better correspond to the derogative designations of Nehemiah’s rivals as
Diana V. Edelman, “Genesis: A Composition for Construing a Homeland of the
Imagination for Elite Scribal Circles or for Educating the Illiterate?,” in Writing the
Bible: Scribes, Scribalism and Script (ed. Philip R. Davies and Thomas Römer;
Durham: Acumen, 2013), 51.
2
Cf. Oded Tammuz, “Will the Real Sanballat Please Stand Up?,” in Samaritans:
Past and Present: Current Studies (ed. Menachem Mor, Friedrich V. Reiterer and
Waltraud Winkler; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), 56; Étienne Nodet, “Sânballaṭ de
Samarie,” RB 122 (2015): 352–353; Dagmar Kühn, “Abraham in Sichem (Gen 12,6–
7): Der Pentateuch als theologisches Gemeinschaftsprojekt im entstehenden
Judentum,” TQ 199 (2019): 32 n. 51.
1
16
Adamczewski, “Abraham and Sanballat,” OTE 34/1 (2021): 14-26
referring to powerful foreigners, Tobiah the Ammonite official and Geshem the
Arabian (Neh 2:10, 19).
The designation of Sanballat as “the Haranite” and not “the Horonite”
also well corresponds to the meaning of his name. The Akkadian name Sînuballiṭ means “may [the moon god] Sin give him life.”3 The name of Sanballat
is therefore related to the moon god Sin. On the other hand, the city of Haran
was well known in antiquity as one of the main centres of the cult of the moon
god Sin.4 Therefore, the appellative “the Haranite” well suits Sanballat as a
person named after the moon god Sin and originating from the Mesopotamian
city of Haran and not from the Ephraimite town of Beth-Horon.
At this point, we can trace the first important connections to the biblical
character of Abraham. The book of Genesis refers to the Mesopotamian city of
Haran as the proximate origin of the character of Abram (Gen 12:4–5). Likewise,
Sanballat the Haranite seems to originate from the Mesopotamian city of Haran.
The name of Abram, the first patriarch of the Israelites, is surprisingly
non-Yahwistic. Likewise non-Yahwistic is the name of Sanballat, in contrast to
the clearly Yahwistic names of Sanballat’s Judean rival Nehemiah, his
Transjordanian ally, Tobiah, as well as Sanballat’s sons, Delaiah and Shelemiah.
This potentially shameful, pagan feature of the Israelite governor of Samaria
could have been reflected in the narrative of Genesis with the use of the likewise
non-Yahwistic, apparently pagan name of Abram.
Besides, it is true that the traditional name of Abraham (cf. Isa 29:22, etc.)
is not related to the cult of the moon god Sin. However, the name of Abram’s
father Terah ()תרח, which alludes to the Semitic word for the moon ()ירח,
together with the names of Abram’s closest female relatives Sarai/Sarah and
Milcah (Gen 11:29), which allude to the names of the closest female relatives of
the moon god Sin, in the opinion of many scholars, are probably related to this
lunar cult.5 Accordingly, the names of Abram’s closest relatives also seem to
allude to the name of the person of Sanballat.
Cf. Alejandro F. Botta, “Sanballat,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism
(ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 1190.
4
Cf. Yoshitaka Kobayashi, “Haran (Place),” in Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vols.; ed.
David N. Freedman; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 3:59; Jürgen Tubach, “Haran
(Place): I. Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible/Old Testament,” EBR 11:293–94;
Nodet, “Sânballaṭ,” 350.
5
Cf. Robert Gnuse, “The Tale of Babel: Parable of Divine Judgment or Human
Cultural Diversification?,” BZ 54 (2010): 240; Dariusz Dziadosz, “Religijny i
społeczny status kobiet w tradycjach o Abrahamie (Rdz 11, 27–25,18),” Verbum Vitae
19 (2011): 26 n. 8; Jonathan Grossman, Abram to Abraham: A Literary Analysis of the
Abraham Narrative (Bern: Lang, 2016), 70.
3
Adamczewski, “Abraham and Sanballat,” OTE 34/1 (2021): 14-26
C
17
THE CITY OF UR AND ITS CULT OF THE MOON GOD SIN
Another important link between the character of Abram/Abraham and the person
of Sanballat can be traced from the idea of Abram’s distant origin being in the
city of Ur of the Chaldeans (Gen 11:31). This double origin of Abram, in Ur and
in Haran, is rather surprising. It creates a certain tension in the story of Genesis.
On the one hand, Yahweh says to Abram that he brought him from Ur of the
Chaldeans (Gen 15:7; cf. 11:31). On the other hand, Yahweh refers to Haran as
Abram’s land and the location of his father’s house (Gen 11:32–12:1; 12:4).
Moreover, the natural route from Ur to Canaan along the River Euphrates does
not lead through the city of Haran, which is located about one hundred kilometres
away from the Euphrates. Therefore, Haran was not a natural stop on the way
from Ur to the land of Canaan.6
Besides, the book of Joshua presents Terah, the father of Abraham and
the father of Nahor, as dwelling “beyond the River” from long ago (Josh 24:2).
Similarly, according to this text, Yahweh took Abraham “from beyond the
River” (Josh 24:3). The location “beyond the River,” presumably the River
Euphrates, evidently suits the northern city of Haran, but not that of Ur.7
Accordingly, the author of the book of Joshua most probably knew nothing about
Abram’s origin in the distant city of Ur in Lower Mesopotamia. This idea was
formulated only later, in the book of Genesis.8
Therefore, the surprising idea of the double origin of Abram in both Ur in
Lower Mesopotamia and Haran in Upper Mesopotamia in the book of Genesis
requires an explanation which cannot be deduced from the internal logic of the
Genesis story. Such an explanation can be provided by the allusive reference of
the character of Abram/Abraham to the person of Sanballat. It should be noted
that not only Haran in Upper Mesopotamia but also Ur in Lower Mesopotamia
was well known in antiquity as one of the main centres of the cult of the moon
6
Cf. Jakob Wöhrle, Fremdlinge im eigenen Land: Zur Entstehung und Intention der
priesterlichen Passagen der Vätergeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2012), 28–29; Joseph Blenkinsopp, “The First Family: Terah and Sons,” JSOT 41/1
(2016): 8; Georg Fischer, Genesis 1–11 (Freiburg: Herder, 2018), 664.
7
Pace Thomas Römer, “Abraham Traditions in the Hebrew Bible outside the Book
of Genesis,” in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (ed.
Craig A. Evans, Joel N. Lohr, and David L. Petersen; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 173–174.
8
Konrad Schmid suggests the reverse direction of literary dependence, namely, from
Genesis to Joshua: idem, “Genesis in the Pentateuch,” in Evans, Lohr, and Petersen,
The Book of Genesis, 36. For the hypothesis of at least partial dependence of the book
of Genesis on the book of Joshua, see Gershon Hepner, Legal Friction: Law, Narrative,
and Identity Politics in Biblical Israel (New York: Lang, 2010), 8; Robert K. Gnuse,
“Seven Gay Texts: Biblical Passages Used to Condemn Homosexuality,” BTB 45
(2015): 72.
18
Adamczewski, “Abraham and Sanballat,” OTE 34/1 (2021): 14-26
god Sin.9 Accordingly, the otherwise strange narrative combination of the cities
of Ur and Haran as two places of Abram’s origin (Gen 11:31–12:4), in fact,
presents Abram as closely related to the main centres of the Mesopotamian
worship of the moon god Sin. In this way, the character of Abram in Genesis
narratively alludes to the name of Sîn-uballiṭ, the one to whom “[the moon god]
Sin gives life.”
D
SHECHEM, MORI-YAH AND MOUNT GERIZIM
In his Mesopotamian place of origin, Abram was ordered by Yahweh to go to
the land of Canaan (Gen 12:1–5). He came to the place at Shechem, in the
territory of Ephraim, and became the first Israelite to whom Yahweh gave the
land of Canaan, so that he should possess it as a hereditary possession (Gen 12:6–
7; 13:14–17; 15:7, etc.). Here again we can see a close connection to the person
of Sanballat. Sanballat, presumably like Nehemiah (Neh 2:1–8), was sent by the
Persian king from Haran, a city in Mesopotamia, to go to the province of Samaria
to become its first Israelite governor (cf. also Josephus, Ant. 11.302),10 and his
heirs evidently became governors after him. Accordingly, the author of Genesis
interpreted the order of the Persian king as an order of Yahweh, a claim which
also corresponds to postexilic Judean theology (Neh 2:8; Ezra 1:1–4; etc.).11
Similarly, the concept of the land as given by Yahweh to the patriarchs and their
descendants as a hereditary possession (Gen 12:6–7; 13:14–17; 15:7; etc.),
although the land in fact still belonged to Yahweh (Lev 25:23), resembles the
status of the Persian province of Samaria as administered by governors and their
descendants, while in fact still belonging to the Persian king.
Another important connection between Abraham and Sanballat refers to
the matter of the inauguration of the one central sanctuary of Yahweh. According
to Josephus, Sanballat founded the sanctuary of Yahweh on Mount Gerizim (Ant.
11.310, 324). Although Josephus rhetorically transposed this event to the
Hellenistic period in order to denigrate that sanctuary, his information
concerning Sanballat as its founder seems to be reliable.12
Cf. Jean-Cl. Margueron, “Ur (Place),” in Anchor Bible Dictionary (trans.
Stephen Rosoff), 6:766; Nodet, “Sânballaṭ,” 350.
10
Cf. Yitzhak Magen, A Temple City, vol. 2 of Mount Gerizim Excavations
(Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2008), 173; Edelman, “Genesis,” 51.
11
It should be noted that no direct literary relationship or relative chronological
priority between the book of Genesis and the books of Ezra-Nehemiah is postulated
here. The matter of dating the books of Ezra-Nehemiah is a complex issue, which
cannot be dealt with here. However, it can be argued that, even if they were written
quite late, the books of Ezra-Nehemiah contain some historically reliable information
concerning the Persian-period Judea.
12
Cf. Magen, Temple City, 172–174; Jan Dušek, “Mt. Gerizim Sanctuary, Its History
and Enigma of Origin,” HBAI 3 (2014): 114–115.
9
Adamczewski, “Abraham and Sanballat,” OTE 34/1 (2021): 14-26
19
Did the narrative character of Abraham perform a similar act? According
to the book of Genesis, when Abram came to the land of Canaan, he passed
through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh, and he built an
altar there (Gen 12:5–7). The location and the Deuteronomic terminology of the
place ( )מקוםat Shechem (Gen 12:6), together with its altar (Gen 12:7), well
correspond to the location and the function of the sanctuary on Mount Gerizim.
However, in Genesis, the patriarchs build altars of Yahweh at various places—
the first one at Shechem (Gen 12:7; 33:20),13 but then, going southward, also at
Bethel (Gen 12:8; 13:4; 35:1, 3, 7), Hebron (Gen 13:18), and Beersheba (Gen
26:25). Therefore, the sanctuary at Shechem is in this respect not unique.
On the other hand, all these altars are presented in Genesis as places of
merely invoking the name of Yahweh, in agreement with the permission granted
in Josh 22:10–34 (and the Elephantine papyri: COS 3.52:9; 3.53:10–11; cf.
3.51:21, 25)14 to the places of some Yahwistic worship away from the central
sanctuary of Yahweh.15 Only the enigmatic land, mountain, and place ( )המקוםof
Moriah (Gen 22:2–3) is described in Genesis as the location of the unique altar
in Canaan on which, in agreement with the will of Yahweh, burnt offerings may
be offered (עלה: Gen 22:2–3, 6–8, 13; contra Gen 12:7–8; 13:4, 18; 26:25; 33:20;
35:1, 3, 7).16 Therefore, the account of offering a burnt offering on Mount Moriah
(Gen 22:1–14) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of the only place of fully
legitimate worship of Yahweh (Deut 12:5, 11, 14, 27; 27:6; cf. Josh 8:31; 22:29).
Where was this Mount Moriah located? The identification of Moriah with
Jerusalem in 2 Chr 3:1 is certainly later and ideologically clearly Judean,
pointing to Jerusalem as the place chosen by Yahweh to build his temple there.17
The book of Genesis contains no such clear identification.
13
Cf. Steffen Leibold, Raum für Konvivenz: Die Genesis als nachexilische
Erinnerungsfigur (Freiburg: Herder, 2014), 329; Kühn, “Abraham in Sichem,” 29–32;
John S. Bergsma, “A ‘Samaritan’ Pentateuch? The Implications of the Pro-Northern
Tendency of the Common Pentateuch,” in Paradigm Change in Pentateuchal Research
(ed. Matthias Armgardt, Benjamin Kilchör and Markus Zehnder; Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 2019), 289–290.
14
Cf. Cynthia Edenburg, “Joshua 24: A Diaspora-oriented Overriding of the Joshua
Scroll,” HBAI 6 (2017): 175.
15
Cf. Edelman, “Genesis,” 55–56.
16
Cf. Benedikt Hensel, Die Vertauschung des Erstgeburtssegens in der Genesis: Eine
Analyse der narrativ-theologischen Grundstruktur des ersten Buches der Tora (Berlin:
De Gruyter, 2011), 96, 178. The altar of Noah (Gen 8:20) was located outside Canaan
in the distant mountains of Ararat.
17
Cf. Yairah Amit, Hidden Polemics in Biblical Narrative (trans. Jonathan Chipman;
Leiden: Brill, 2000), 142–147. Jean Louis Ska suggests that 2 Chr 3:1 did not know
Gen 22: idem, “Genesis 22: What Question Should We Ask the Text?,” Bib 94 (2013):
267. However, it can be argued that the author of 2 Chr 3:1 knew Gen 22:1–19 (cf. the
Adamczewski, “Abraham and Sanballat,” OTE 34/1 (2021): 14-26
20
In Genesis, the enigmatic, previously unknown name Moriah (המריה: Gen
22:2) linguistically alludes to the Deuteronomic place called Moreh (מרה: Deut
11:30; cf. המורה: Judg 7:1; מורה: Gen 12:6),19 which was located close to Mount
Gerizim (Deut 11:29–30; cf. Gen 12:6: Shechem), contextually presented in
Deuteronomy as the place where Yahweh chooses to put his name (cf. Deut
12:5.21 etc.).20 In order to illustrate this Deuteronomic idea, the author of
Genesis coined the artificial, theophoric name Mori-Yah (Gen 22:2), which has
the name of Yah(weh) linguistically inserted into it, so that it represents
linguistically the “place” of the name of Yah(weh) at Moreh. In this procedure,
the author of Genesis imitated the well-known example of inserting the name of
God (El) linguistically into the toponym Beth-El (cf. Gen 28:17, 19). The author
of Genesis resolved thereby the problem of the Deuteronomic lack of clarity
18
use of the Genesis story of Abraham in 1 Chr 1:27–28.32.34), but he did not mention
Abraham in 2 Chr 3:1 because he was aware that Yahweh had never appeared to
Abraham in Jerusalem.
18
Cf. Claus Westermann, Genesis 12–36, vol. 2 of Genesis (3rd ed.; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003), 437; Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27–50:26
(Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2005), 290–291.
19
Cf. Pekka Pitkänen, “Reading Genesis–Joshua as a Unified Document from an
Early Date: A Settler Colonial Perspective,” BTB 45 (2015): 15; Bergsma, “Samaritan
Pentateuch,” 288–289.
20
For arguments concerning the identification of Yahweh’s chosen place in Deut
11:31–12:28 with Mount Gerizim, see Stefan Schorch, “The Samaritan Version of
Deuteronomy and the Origin of Deuteronomy,” in Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans:
Studies on Bible, History and Linguistics (ed. József Zsengellér; Berlin: De Gruyter,
2011), 26–28; Gary N. Knoppers, “Samaritan Conceptions of Jewish Origins and
Jewish Conceptions of Samaritan Origins: Any Common Ground?,” in Die
Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen
biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen (ed. Jörg Frey, Ursula Schattner-Rieser,
and Konrad Schmid; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), 87. The book of Deuteronomy as a
whole seems to present Mount Gerizim as the chosen “place” of blessing, the dwelling
of the name of Yahweh, and the altar of Yahweh (Deut 11:29–12:27; 27:12–13),
although it apparently presents Mount Ebal as the location of the altar of Yahweh (Deut
27:4–8 MT; confirmed by Josh 8:30–35); cf. Detlef Jericke, “Der Berg Garizim im
Deuteronomium,” ZAW 124 (2012): 219–227. In any case, both mountains are located
in the region of the oaks of Moreh (Deut 11:30), and not in Jerusalem. The choice of
Mount Gerizim, and not simply Shechem, for the location of a sanctuary is somewhat
surprising; cf. Magnar Kartveit, “The Second Temple and the Temple of the
Samaritans,” in Frey, Schattner-Rieser, and Schmid, Die Samaritaner und die Bibel,
73–75. However, this mountain could have been selected precisely because it had no
significant previous cultic history, apart from the presence of the famous oak of Moreh
in its region (Deut 11:30; Gen 12:6; cf. Judg 9:6, 37). Therefore, it could have been
presented as the place freely chosen by Yahweh, and not by humans.
Adamczewski, “Abraham and Sanballat,” OTE 34/1 (2021): 14-26
21
concerning the location of the unique altar of Yahweh21 by explicitly locating the
oak of Moreh in the region of Shechem (Gen 12:6) and by allusively associating
the “place” of offering a burnt sacrifice to Yahweh (Gen 22:2–3) with the
Deuteronomic mountain of blessing, that is, Mount Gerizim (Deut 11:29–30).
Accordingly, in the book of Genesis, the mountain and “place” of Moriah alludes
to the Yahwistic sanctuary on Mount Gerizim.22
Consequently, the narrative character of Abraham, who offered a burnt
offering to Yahweh only on the altar located on Mount Moriah, that is, allusively,
on the altar located on Mount Gerizim (Gen 22:1–14), again alludes to the person
of Sanballat, who founded the sanctuary on Mount Gerizim and inaugurated the
offering of burnt offerings to Yahweh in that place.
E
RESPECT FOR THE JUDEAN PRIESTHOOD
In the Genesis narrative, having built the first altar in Canaan at Shechem (Gen
12:6–7), Abram went from that place towards the South (Gen 12:9; 13:18). In
the opinion of Diana V. Edelman, Abram thus became “a neutral, common
ancestor for the North and the South.”23 However, such a neutral image is
possible as long as there is no other Israelite leader in the South, like Judah later
became a rival to Joseph (Gen 37:26–27 etc.). The situation of Sanballat was
similar to that of Abram. Nehemiah complains that when he came to seek the
well-being of the sons of Israel, Sanballat the Haranite and Tobiah the Ammonite
official heard of it, and it displeased them greatly (Neh 2:10). Accordingly,
Sanballat had already been in the land of Israel before Nehemiah came to
Jerusalem (cf. Neh 2:11). The confrontation between the two Israelite leaders
and their claims to govern the sons of Israel is here evident. Before Nehemiah
came to Jerusalem, Sanballat had been the only governor who sought “the wellbeing of the sons of Israel” (cf. Neh 2:10), presumably both in the North and in
the South. When Nehemiah came, he perceived himself as likewise called “to
seek the well-being of the sons of Israel” (Neh 2:10). Therefore, the image of
Cf. Gary N. Knoppers, “The Northern Context of the Law-Code in Deuteronomy,”
HBAI 4 (2015): 165–167. Frederick E. Greenspahn argues that the syntax of Deut 12
does not require that sacrifice be limited to a single place: idem, “Deuteronomy and
Centralization,” VT 64 (2014): 232–234. However, even if this is the case,
Deuteronomy mentions only one altar, located in a single place, on one of the mountains
in the region of Shechem (Deut 27:5–6; cf. 12:26–27; 16:21; 26:1–4; 33:10). Cf. also
Bill T. Arnold, “Deuteronomy 12 and the Law of the Central Sanctuary noch einmal,”
VT 64 (2014): 236–48.
22
Luciano Lepore regards the identification of Moriah with Mount Gerizim as equally
plausible as its identification with Jerusalem: idem, Sulle orme dei patriarchi (Bornato
in Franciacorta: Sardini, 2018), 161.
23
Cf. Edelman, “Genesis,” 51.
21
22
Adamczewski, “Abraham and Sanballat,” OTE 34/1 (2021): 14-26
Abram as coming to the land of Canaan and dwelling both in the North and in
the South resembles the situation of Sanballat before the arrival of Nehemiah.
In the story of Abraham, the South is, however, not totally devoid of
leaders who might be rivals to him. In another enigmatic story, Abram meets
Melchizedek, king of Salem. The motif of Melchizedek, the king of Salem,
bringing out ( *י־צדק מלך *שלם+ יצאin hiph‘il: Gen 14:18) is a reworking of the
motif of Adonizedek, the king of Jerusalem, being brought out (Josh 10:1, 3, 23).
Therefore, the enigmatic place named Salem in Gen 14:18 should be identified
with Jerusalem.24
The author of Genesis described the Israelite hero Abram as paying
respect to a priest25 and king from Salem, that is Jerusalem, as far as he was
righteous, peaceful, monotheistic (although not invoking the name of Yahweh;26
contra Judg 17:2, etc.),27 and bringing food offerings (cf. Lev 23:13, etc.;28 so
not burnt animal offerings), which were not prohibited for him by Israel’s law
(Gen 14:18–20). Accordingly, in the Israelite (northern) rhetoric of Gen 14:18–
20, the temple in Jerusalem, in contrast to Mount Moriah, that is, Mount Gerizim,
with its legitimate altar of burnt offerings (cf. Gen 22:13), was treated similarly
to the altar in Transjordan (cf. Josh 22:10–34) and to the temple at Elephantine,
in which only food offerings and incense, but not burnt offerings, were allowed
(cf. COS 3.52:9; 3.53:10–11; cf. also 3.51:21, 25).29
Therefore, the image of Abram paying respect to a monotheistic priest
from Salem, that is, Jerusalem (Gen 14:18–20), again alludes to the person of
Sanballat, who received into his family as his son-in-law an important priest from
Jerusalem, one of the sons of Joiada, the son of Eliashib the high priest in
Jerusalem (Neh 13:28).
24
The remark concerning Shalem/Shalom ( )שלםin Gen 14:18 was explicitly
interpreted as referring to Jerusalem in later Judean texts (Ps 76:3 MT; 110:2–4;
1QapGen XXII, 13). Cf. Amit, Hidden Polemics, 151, 154.
25
Cf. Moshe Reiss, “The Melchizedek Traditions,” SJOT 26 (2012): 260.
26
Cf. the similar use of the motif of God Most High ( עליון+ )אלplaced in the mouth
of the non-Israelite Balaam (Num 24:16).
27
Cf. Mathews, Genesis 11:27–50:26, 149–150.
28
David Elgavish has argued that the story of the Gibeonites (Josh 9:12–14) presents
bread and wine as important elements for concluding a treaty: idem, “The Encounter of
Abram and Melchizedek King of Salem: A Covenant Establishing Ceremony,” in
Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History (ed. André Wénin;
Leuven: Leuven University Press; Leuven: Peeters, 2001), 498–499. Although this
story mentions bread and wine, it does not refer to them as necessary for establishing a
covenant.
29
For this important cultic-legal difference between the sanctuaries on Mt. Gerizim
and at Elephantine, see Edelman, “Genesis,” 56; Dušek, “Mt. Gerizim,” 118 n. 32.
Adamczewski, “Abraham and Sanballat,” OTE 34/1 (2021): 14-26
F
23
ORIGIN AND DATE OF GENESIS
It can therefore be demonstrated that several important features of the narrative
character of Abraham allude to the features of the historical person of Sanballat.
The detected links are of great importance to the issues of the origin, dating, and
interpretation of the book of Genesis. In contrast to the widespread opinion
concerning the Jewish origin of the Torah, the above-presented arguments
suggest that the origins of Genesis can be traced not to Judea but to the secular
elite of the Persian province of Samaria.
Besides, since the sanctuary on Mount Gerizim seems to have been
founded by Sanballat ca. 424–407 B.C.,30 then late fifth century B.C. constitutes
the plausible terminus a quo for the composition of Genesis. More particularly,
since the Genesis story of the Israelite patriarchs (Gen 12–50) covers four
generations, and the character of Abraham displays significant features of
Sanballat, then, the importance of the fourth-generation Joseph (Gen 37–50)
points to the fourth generation after Sanballat, thus, to ca. 300 B.C., as the time
of the composition of Genesis. However, if we do not count the patriarchs’
generations in abstract terms, but rather understand them as alluding to the
sequence of the governors of the Persian province of Samaria, then, all four
“generations” of the governors fall within the Persian period.31 It is possible that
the narrative traits of the Genesis characters of Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph also
allude to the particular features of the governors of Samaria after Sanballat
(Delaiah etc.), but alas, we have almost no detailed historical information
concerning these officials. In any case, the allusive significance of not only the
character of Abraham but also, probably, the three generations of Israelite leaders
after him implies that Genesis was written not in late fifth century B.C. but by the
end of the Persian period, thus, ca. 350–340 B.C.
G
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Amit, Yairah. Hidden Polemics in Biblical Narrative. Translated by Jonathan Chipman.
BibInt 25. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Arnold, Bill T. “Deuteronomy 12 and the Law of the Central Sanctuary noch einmal.”
Vetus Testamentum 64 (2014): 236–248.
Bergsma, John S. “A ‘Samaritan’ Pentateuch? The Implications of the Pro-Northern
Tendency of the Common Pentateuch.” Pages 287–300 in Paradigm Change in
Pentateuchal Research. Edited by Matthias Armgardt, Benjamin Kilchör and
Markus Zehnder. BZABR 22. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2019.
Dušek, “Mt. Gerizim,” 114–116.
Cf. Menahem Mor, “The Building of the Samaritan Temple and the Samaritan
Governors – Again,” in Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans: Studies on Bible, History and
Linguistics. (SJ 66/Studia Samaritana 6; ed. József Zsengellér; Berlin: De Gruyter,
2011), 105.
30
31
24
Adamczewski, “Abraham and Sanballat,” OTE 34/1 (2021): 14-26
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. “The First Family: Terah and Sons.” Journnal for the Study of the
Old Testament 41/1 (2016): 3–13.
Botta, Alejandro F. “Sanballat.” Pages 1190–1191 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of
Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2010.
Dušek, Jan. “Mt. Gerizim Sanctuary, Its History and Enigma of Origin.” Hebrew Bible
and Ancient Israel 3 (2014): 111–133.
Dziadosz, Dariusz. “Religijny i społeczny status kobiet w tradycjach o Abrahamie (Rdz
11,27–25,18).” Verbum Vitae 19 (2011): 15–40.
Edelman, Diana V. “Genesis: A Composition for Construing a Homeland of the
Imagination for Elite Scribal Circles or for Educating the Illiterate?” Pages 47–
66 in Writing the Bible: Scribes, Scribalism and Script. Edited by Philip
R. Davies and Thomas Römer. Bible World. Durham: Acumen, 2013.
Edenburg, Cynthia. “Joshua 24: A Diaspora-oriented Overriding of the Joshua Scroll.”
Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 6 (2017): 161–180.
Elgavish, David. “The Encounter of Abram and Melchizedek King of Salem:
A Covenant Establishing Ceremony.” Pages 495–508 in Studies in the Book of
Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History. Edited by André Wénin. BETL
155. Leuven: Leuven University Press; Leuven: Peeters, 2001.
Fischer, Georg. Genesis 1–11. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2018.
Gnuse, Robert. “The Tale of Babel: Parable of Divine Judgment or Human Cultural
Diversification?” Biblische Zeitschrift 54 (2010): 229–244.
Gnuse, Robert K. “Seven Gay Texts: Biblical Passages Used to Condemn
Homosexuality.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 45 (2015): 68–87.
Greenspahn, Frederick E. “Deuteronomy and Centralization.” Vetus Testamentum 64
(2014): 227–235.
Grossman, Jonathan. Abram to Abraham: A Literary Analysis of the Abraham
Narrative. Das Alte Testament im Dialog 11. Bern: Lang, 2016.
Hensel, Benedikt. Die Vertauschung des Erstgeburtssegens in der Genesis: Eine
Analyse der narrativ-theologischen Grundstruktur des ersten Buches der Tora.
BZAW 423. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011.
Hepner, Gershon. Legal Friction: Law, Narrative, and Identity Politics in Biblical
Israel. StBibLit 78. New York: Lang, 2010.
Jericke, Detlef. “Der Berg Garizim im Deuteronomium.” Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 124 (2012): 213–228.
Kartveit, Magnar. “The Second Temple and the Temple of the Samaritans.” Pages 67–
80 in Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische
Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen.
Edited by Jörg Frey, Ursula Schattner-Rieser, and Konrad Schmid. SJ 70 /
Studia Samaritana 7. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012.
Knoppers, Gary N. “The Northern Context of the Law-Code in Deuteronomy.” Hebrew
Bible and Ancient Israel 4 (2015): 162–183.
______. “Samaritan Conceptions of Jewish Origins and Jewish Conceptions of
Samaritan Origins: Any Common Ground?” Pages 81–118 in Die Samaritaner
und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen
biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen. Edited by Jörg Frey, Ursula
Schattner-Rieser, and Konrad Schmid. SJ 70/Studia Samaritana 7. Berlin: De
Gruyter, 2012.
Adamczewski, “Abraham and Sanballat,” OTE 34/1 (2021): 14-26
25
Kobayashi, Yoshitaka. “Haran (Place).” Pages 58–59 in vol. 3 of Anchor Bible
Dictionary. Edited by David N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Kühn, Dagmar. “Abraham in Sichem (Gen 12,6–7): Der Pentateuch als theologisches
Gemeinschaftsprojekt
im
entstehenden
Judentum.”
Theologische
Quartalschrift 199 (2019): 19–33.
Leibold, Steffen. Raum für Konvivenz: Die Genesis als nachexilische Erinnerungsfigur.
Herders Biblische Studien 77. Freiburg: Herder, 2014.
Lepore, Luciano. Sulle orme dei patriarchi. Bibbia e Oriente: Supplementa. Bornato in
Franciacorta: Sardini, 2018.
Magen, Yitzhak. A Temple City. Vol. 2 of Mount Gerizim Excavations. Judea &
Samaria Publications 8. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2008.
Margueron, Jean-Cl. “Ur (Place).” Translated by Stephen Rosoff. Pages 766–767 in
vol. 6 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David N. Freedman. 6 vols. New
York: Doubleday, 1992.
Mathews, Kenneth A. Genesis 11:27–50:26. NAC 1B. Nashville: Broadman &
Holman, 2005.
Mor, Menahem. “The Building of the Samaritan Temple and the Samaritan Governors
– Again.” Pages 89–108 in Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans: Studies on Bible,
History and Linguistics. Edited by József Zsengellér. SJ 66/Studia Samaritana
6. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011.
Nodet, Étienne. “Sânballaṭ de Samarie.” Revue Biblique 122 (2015): 340–354.
Pitkänen, Pekka. “Reading Genesis–Joshua as a Unified Document from an Early Date:
A Settler Colonial Perspective.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 45 (2015): 3–31.
Reiss, Moshe. “The Melchizedek Traditions.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old
Testament 26 (2012): 259–265.
Römer, Thomas. “Abraham Traditions in the Hebrew Bible outside the Book of
Genesis.” Pages 159–80 in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and
Interpretation. Edited by Craig A. Evans, Joel N. Lohr and David L. Petersen.
VTSup 152. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Schmid, Konrad. “Genesis in the Pentateuch.” Pages 27–50 in The Book of Genesis:
Composition, Reception, and Interpretation. Edited by Craig A. Evans, Joel
N. Lohr and David L. Petersen. VTSup 152. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Schorch, Stefan. “The Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy and the Origin of
Deuteronomy.” Pages 23–37 in Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans: Studies on
Bible, History and Linguistics. Edited by József Zsengellér. SJ 66/Studia
Samaritana 6. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011.
Ska, Jean L. “Genesis 22: What Question Should We Ask the Text?” Biblica 94 (2013):
257–267.
Tammuz, Oded. “Will the Real Sanballat Please Stand Up?” Pages 51–58 in
Samaritans: Past and Present: Current Studies. Edited by Menachem Mor,
Friedrich V. Reiterer and Waltraud Winkler. SJ 53/Studia Samaritana 5. Berlin:
De Gruyter, 2010.
Tubach, Jürgen. “Haran (Place): I. Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible/Old
Testament.” Pages 291–298 in vol. 11 of Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its
Reception. Edited by Constance M. Furey et al. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009.
Westermann, Claus. Genesis 12–36. Vol. 2 of Genesis. BKAT 1/2. 3rd ed. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003.
26
Adamczewski, “Abraham and Sanballat,” OTE 34/1 (2021): 14-26
Wöhrle, Jakob. Fremdlinge im eigenen Land: Zur Entstehung und Intention der
priesterlichen Passagen der Vätergeschichte. FRLANT 246. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012.
Assoc. Prof. Bartosz Adamczewski, Faulty of Theology, Cardinal Stefan
Wyszyński University in Warsaw, Dewajtis 5, PL-01-815 Warsaw, Poland.
Email: b.adamczewski@ukw.edu.pl. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-00017847-0203.